Eurick v. Pemco Insurance Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that policy containing motorcycle exclusion clause did not violate policy of statute governing UIM coverage where the legislature permitted insurers to exclude from their underinsured policies losses by persons “operating or occupying a motorcycle.”
• “Because motorcycles clearly represent an additional risk to the insurer [of an automobile], the exclusion is valid.”
• Courts must avoid a “strained or forced construction” of the agreement and avoid interpretations “leading to absurd results.”
• Court should give a practical and reasonable interpretation, and avoid strained or forced constructions of contracts that lead to absurd results
• exclusions that have been held violative of public policy generally have been those manifesting no relation to any increased risk faced by the insurer, or when innocent victims have been denied coverage for no good reason
• \The legislative intent was to grant insurers a special exemption from the general requirement of offering underinsured motorist coverage: insurers would not have to cover the special risks posed by motorcycles.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).